RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years

509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study

The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.

Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.

Points

Content Count

Popular Content

Is the document made available by the central/state public information officer is admissible as evidence in a court of law?
It is very pertinent question. This question is sure to arise when the receipient of the document attempts to put in as evidence in a case pending in the civil or criminal court.
The document made available by the Public Information Officer is the one which is already recorded in the official records and published or it may be one which is not recorded and published or the one which is yet to be recorded and published. What the public information officer does is, he just furnishes a copy of the record. Such record may be a true copy but it is not either authenticated or can be vouchsafed as true. The information available will be is something like news. The public information Officer is not a party to such information. He is not capable of speaking anything about the content of the document or about its veracity.
The document furnished by the public Information Officer is no doubt a document issued from the proper custody and by the authority which by law is found to keep the inofrmation and disseminate it. That by itself doesnot make the document either authentic or its contents true. Moreover, the document issued has no purpose other than allowing the recipient to know of this content and nothing more. It is not the intention or the purpose of Public Information Officer to support the recipent when he uses it for any purpose either to prove or disprove any fact in which the recipient of the document is only concerned. The document and the information contained therein is neutral as if it is just a news.
The public Information Officer is completely ignorant of the purpose for which the applicant has made his request for information nor the Public Information Officer is in any manner concerned with it. In the application for information the applicant is not required to state any reasons why he requires information. Therefore, it is not an application for a certified copy of any information recorded by any adjudicating authority in a dispute. As per the practices of the courts and tribunals the party applying for a certified copy should state weather it is required for purpose of appeal or for reference. No such condition is prescribed for the applicant for information to state the reason why he requires information. The copy furnished by the court can be used only for the purpose for which the copy of appplication is made. As per the practices prevalent with the Government when an application for certified copy is made, the authority or the officer recieving the application will specifically endorse on the copy he grants, that it shall not be used in court as evidence eventhough the information contained theirein is not only true and is also authentic. In such cases, the court recieving the certified copy, before admitting the document requires that the document should be proved to be of the original. It is particularly true so in the case of survey maps, where the court normally as a practice appoints the official surveyour as a court Commissioner and obtain the true sketch. Here, in the case of Public Information Officer wheather he makes an endorsement as is referred to above to the said effect that the documents supplied by him shall not be used in court, it is implied in the circumstances of this Act that the document made available to the applicant shall not be used as a proof in court proceedings.
Further, the principal purpose of the Act itself is to make available to the citizens all infomration the Government is possessed off for his self-illumination to function as an enlightned and well informaed citizen and not to help him to score any point with his opponent in any dispute.
Thus, when the citizen wants to use the document obtained by him from the Public Information Officer as a document in any civil or criminal proceedings, he should adopt the procedure prescribed for purpose of obtaining certified copies through court process and not by making an application for information under this Act.
However this interpretation is yet to be formalized by way of decisions that may occur in future.

You have to do as they advised, and without fail mention that this is the second complaint on same issue and that this complaint is once again being made as per instructions from Sri...................of APIC on..........................
Thank God. Is APIC functioning ??? (There is no such second complaint on non compliance, but what applicant can do is follow their irrational directions. When the PIO has not even responded to repeated APIC directions, APIC directing to file another complaint is never proper)
Avoid quoting each time as it occupies lot of space with repeated contents not useful, and those members who require guidance on the same issue feels irritated. Just focus on issue and as far as possible avoid quotes.

Unless and until the State Information Commissioners act strictly in conformity with the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, there is no use of either Second Appeal or Complaint. By simply mentioning in the orders of 2nd Appeal ' issue Show Cause Notice and the PIO is directed to furnish the information now within 10 days' does not service any purpose.
Latest example - One PIO in my district did't furnish Information within stipulated time. Hence first Appeal was filed in which I got notice for hearing. I have informed that as per orders of the CIC in particular case, the FAA has no authority to call the appellant/applicant. In this case, fault lies with his with PIO whio failed to furnish the information and I had nothing to contest..
Second appeal was filed quoting all the above facts. Hearing Notices were issued. On receipt of hearing Notices, partial information from the PIO, copy of disposal of First Appeal in old date and copy of PIOs letter addressed to another Public Authority U/s 6(3) after one year has been received.. .
This is the fate of implementation of RTI Act at every level. No justice can be expected from RTI Act as it is being killed slowly by poor execution of the provisions of the Act. In earlier days, there was some fear among the Executiving Authorities about strong Act. However orders of the Commissioner are awaited.

Under RTI one can seek such information available on public record of as material like muster roll etc. First make a complaint to TSRTC that Supdt has performed duty for half day providing date and worked time and state that he has drawn full wage. Working hours in office, and duty officers of Drivers and conductors are entirely different aspects. In routine office, absence for few hours may not make any difference where as absence of driver or conductor makes lot of difference in public transport. In office those official adjustments and compromises are regular, as they may perform duties even without uniform.
After making such a complaint, file RTI Application after one month and seek information on action taken against your complaint.

Go for first appeal that in larger public interest those public records connected to welfare measures must be given to prevent abuse of the welfare measures going to undeserving applicants.
Certainly you will get a favourable decision finally.